I'm trying to decide between the Bushnell 4200 and Burris laser scope....both have very good pro's....not interested in Leo's, so don't bother....same with the overpriced europeans . Want opinions on these 2 only...thanks guys.I really like the rainguard that the 4200 offers...but have heard alot of great reports on Burris also....hmmm. Going to be mounted on a 30.06 shooting 165gr. lite mags for deer,moose,elk and bear.

I've never owned a Burris, but have checked them out in the field and their nice. I own a bunch of Bushnells that mostly sit on the shelf, but I have one mounted. The 2 times I've broken them they have repaired them for $5. Now they sit to go on trade.

To sum it up, I have no real info for either scope. You can't really go wrong with any one you pick. That Firefly and rainguard is nice though.

I wouldn't rule out the Nikon and Sightron models. They offer comparable priced scopes that I own and love. The SI II is a trememdous bargain.

Let's not make this a debate over whether a $2K Swarovski is a good dollar for dollar bargain. If you got it, good for you. I'm the first one to admit to jealousy. I have all kinds of high dollar shooting equipment but I won't be bought into the idea the minimal extra light transmission you can actually perceive is necessary. The increase in cost does not translate directly into a increase in function. LST expires before the critical light gathering would be needed. A $40 Tasco or Simmons transmits more than enough light for 99.999% of the shooting and hunting situations require. The other thing is a 50 bell objective lens. Before I get schooled on exit pupils and what not, I'm still going to hit you with LST. Everyone thinks you need 18x magnification and a 54 mm obj to hunt deer. Some guys need a big hammer regardless of the size of the nail.

Comparing the 4200 to a VX-III in the store, I once thought the same. In the field, the differences are much more profound. I still like my 4200 scope, but there is not enough difference in price to make me think twice about paying the little extra for a VX-III (or now, the VX-3). I do, however, find Swarovski scopes overpriced for what you get. I think there is better out there for that kind of money.

This season, I banged my rifle pretty damn hard. Decided to go back to the truck and borrow my buddy's spare rifle with a 4.5-14 Buckmaster. 20 minutes before last shooting light on an overcast day, I had quite a few deer moving through in front of my stand 300 yards out. I found the buck I wanted while using my Leica binocs. Clear as day, I knew he was the one, and watched him until he moved in to about 190-200 yards. Chip shot...already had him down, and his head on my wall.

Light transmision is only one of the subjects that come with good glass. But i like a 40 mm obj and a scope that can reapeat its self. Go do a box test on a tasco or barfska and then a nsx, S&b, uso, leupy or even the 4200 and tell me what happens. Go shoot 1000 rounds through a cheap scope and see how it holds up. Drop it with a cheap scope and your zero is screwed with a great scope and mounting system you are able to pick it up and go. For the money i think swaros are over rated scopes now binos and spotting scopes they are the top of the line. The warranty that comes with good glass is also a plus if it breaks send it in and it will be fixed no questions asked. It is hard to convince some one to spend that kind of money if all they are using it for is shooting a couple times a year for deer and i understand that. But for people who shoot alot and do it at any distance a good repeatable and durable scope is something they want and need. there are scopes that can do it for a good price like super snipers, falcons, wonder optics and all those are in a reasonable price range. I was in the same boat when i thought that i did not need that good of glass had a bsa thought that was good enough then i shot a buddys rifle with a NSX on it and was like WOW that is unbelievable differnce. I could see the holes from a .30 cal at 400 yds in target clear as day. bottom line it buy what YOU want and shoot the hell out it to become proficent and put first round hits on it becaue you are the one shooting not me or anyone else. I still say buy the best you can afford.

When your talking a $100 BSA Vs a $400 4200 you aren't comparing apples to apples. Sure there is a difference between a single coated BSA and a target grade scope.

When I was putting more hours in the gun store I sold quite a few scopes. I would take 5-8 models and put them on the display case. Without seeing the tags on the side I had them look through all the scopes and give them back blindly. More often than not people cannot distinguish between the Leupolds, Nikon, Sightron, Bushnell and Redfields. Unless you know reticle styles offered and to look at the interior tube between the lenses you might be surprised. Lots of guys still bought what they came in for and couldn't be swayed. They usually had a previous good experience to compell them to stick with what they know. Switching them was never really the point. You may be even more surprised if your handed a rifleman, vx1, vx2 and a vx3. Given out of pricing order almost all couldn't say which was which. Some would get 2 right.

I put the proper glass that each individual rifle calls for. I don't see the need to get a $600 2x7x32 Leupold VX3 for a brush gun. I got the rifleman for my 30-30. When your scope is more valueable than the rifle I start getting confused.

4200 over the Burris anyday of the week. I have used the Black Diamond, and the 4200. The 4200 is way better in my opinion. I have never seen anything Burris that I liked. My buddy has a set of Burris binos that are terrible and my new Burris spotting scope is worth just about what I paid for it on ebay. 52 bucks. The Black Diamond is the top of the line burris and I would compare it to a vx-II or maybe the 3200 series bushnell. Nikon Monarch is a way better scope for the money than the Burris and has better glass. Laser scope is gimmicky garbage.

There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys

don taylor wrote: LST expires before the critical light gathering would be needed. A $40 Tasco or Simmons transmits more than enough light for 99.999% of the shooting and hunting situations require.

What if it's overcast, rainy, cloudy or whatever, depends on where and what you are hunting and what you can afford, I'll scrimp and save what ever I have to to put a better scope on my gun, I will never buy another Tasco anything. What is missing an opportunity at a chance of a lifetime because you cheaped out on optics worth to you, been there done that. I like Leupold, I'll spend more on the scope than the gun. Any advantage you can gain is worth it to me, you spread the cost difference out over the years that you'll have it and it's really not that big of a deal. I won't buy a $2000 scope, not because I don't think it's worth it, I just wouldn't feel comfortable carrying it around, $500 is about my comfort level on a scope, I know it's better than a $40 one, I can see the difference.

don taylor wrote: The increase in cost does not translate directly into a increase in function.

Gotta disagree again, especially with optics. Looking through them in the store and in field conditions is 2 very different worlds. I'll pay a little more for the name, because I know I'm getting a good product with a good warranty.

Buy once cry once is my saying about optics. Just go on utube and look at the tests they put the us optics scopes through. If one of those break when you are out hunting i think that the scope might be the least of your worries because you just fell of a 400 ft cliff

Ive shot 5 elk and 3 deer with my bushnell 3200 elite. 2 of the elk were in very low light and 1 was snowin like a sob. For about 400 dollars i couldnt ask for a better scope. Hasnt let me down yet and im positive it never will.

Ok- first it is nearly pointless to compare scopes in a well lit sporting good store other than to determine a preferred reticle. Most don't bother to check the windage\elevation knobs to see if they click, are smooth etc... Most don't bother to see if it will mount easily on the rifle they have or if higher rings are needed. I will stick to the two scopes you mention and say that I own a Burris and it is a fantastic scope for the money. The Bushnell 4200 has a reputation for being one of the brightest scopes out there and LST's aside- I want as bright a s cope as I can possibly get. Case in point- it is getting light but you are looking at a deer in heavy cover in a very low, very protected area. The guy in the opposite east side slope has all the light he needs but you are still trying to count points, or even verify it is a buck. My first scope was a good one but I scrimped just a bit and soon wish I hadn't. Of the two scopes you list I would get the Bushnell. They are tough and have excellent reputations for glass and adjustments- the only slight knock is that eye relief is a bit critical so make sure to test repeatedly where it is being mounted before securing it permanantly. The reason I would vote against the Burris isn't due to quality but the fact that I don't like multipurpose tools and find them usually a compromise of each- rather than the best of either. The 4200 is an outstanding scope and comparable to high end Euro's so buy it for that reason. If you need a range finder- go buy a separate one. The only other suggestion would be to buy a different Burris wit h the ballistiplex reticle. Easy to use, non mechanical\electrical, and accurate for shooting at longer distances.